Running

 head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     1  

 

How to Authentically Integrate Digital Citizenship in Schools

Sarah Fitzpatrick

University of British Columbia

Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     2  
 

Abstract

Teaching and using technology in schools has become more important than ever before.

As adults we cannot even begin to envision the types of jobs our students will have when

they graduate from high school and university, but what we do know is that many jobs

will require students to be digitally literate. Therefore, as teachers, we have an obligation

to teach our students the skills necessary to access, problem solve, and think critically

about the technology they are using. Furthermore, as technology is becoming more

accessible to everyone, including young children, it is essential for adults to educate

students on the importance of their online presence. We do this by teaching them how to

create a positive digital footprint that reflects the person they are. Children and

adolescents need to see that there is a direct link to how others perceive them online, and

the person they are. Recently there has been a lot of debate on how technology should be

integrated and taught in the classroom. How much is too much when asking teachers to

take on new tasks? To tackle these issues many schools have adopted and created Digital

Citizenship and Technology Curriculums, and Technology Policies. Within these

documents, schools outline what skills need to be learned to become digitally literate and

how to use digital tools appropriately. Digital citizenship, though, needs to be seen

separate from digital literacy. While digital literacy is learning the skills required to be

successful, digital citizenship is using those skills to create change, take action or draw

awareness using online tools. If a school's mission, vision, and values, reflect the types of

citizens we wish our students to become, there is no need for schools to create and use a

digital citizenship curriculum.

Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     3  
 

In classrooms today teachers are no longer just expected to use digital tools but

understand how students are affected by these technologies over time (Ribble, 2016).

Children now have more access to technology and technological devices than ever

before. New software, products, games, programs, and Apps are developing every day

and children of all ages have them at their disposal. This is despite the fact that

companies have created age restrictions to keep young users from accessing their

programs. For instance, Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat state that the user must be 13

years or older to sign up. It would be impossible for companies to monitor the usage of

these programs, however. A user can easily get around this obstacle simply by putting in

a false birthday to gain access to all of these public social media platforms. An article in

the Daily Mail (2016) suggests that over half of children are using social media before

the age of 10, and over half of 8 to 16 years olds have admitted to ignoring the age

requirement on Facebook. Moreover, in this study, they found that only 32% of these

parents feel confident about helping their children stay safe online (Daily Mail, 2016).

With so many children participating and sharing information online, new issues have

emerged for students. Cyberbullying and sexting are new problems that children

everywhere are experiencing, and they have “complex causal roots in adolescent identity-

formation, peer struggles, self-esteem, romantic exploration, and sexual decision-

making” (Jones & Mitchell, 2015).

Young students may be good at learning basic technology skills and be considered

digital natives in light of that, but it cannot be taken for granted that they have yet to
Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     4  
 
understand the consequences their choices can have when deciding what to share online

(Young, 2014). “While [students] are great at navigating a new app or figuring out how

to use the latest gadget, kids are not experts when it comes to properly communicating

and ethically handling everything that comes along with using digital tools.”(Young,

2014). They have yet to understand what a digital footprint is and how posting sensitive

information can put them at risk (Young, 2014). As adults we need to make a mind-shift

and realize that in the 21st century, our online and offline presence are one in the same.

We should not conduct ourselves differently when we are online. Adults do not have a

curriculum to teach children to be safe in the real world, it is something that humans do

naturally. By creating digital citizen documents that outline specific outcomes, separates

one’s online-self from one's offline-self. This separation creates a disconnect between the

two when in truth they should be seen as one in the same.

These issues have changed the foundations of educational technology. There is now

a demand for schools to not only teach students technological skills, but also Internet

safety and responsibility, in addition to responsible digital citizenship (Ribble, 2016).

With these new responsibilities and requirements, a clear process and vision needs to be

put in place. Teachers need to have an understanding of the technological skills that

students need, as well as what it means to be a digital citizen. (Ribble, 2016). “Teaching

basic digital literacy skills… is a start, but students need to learn how to use technology

in ways that enhance their learning experience and lead to self-empowerment and

awareness.”(Dotterer et al., 2016).

To be successful Mishra and Koehler (2006) advise that education needs a

pedagogical shift and should adopt a new framework. This new structure would go
Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     5  
 
“beyond merely identifying problems with current approaches; it offers new ways of

looking at and perceiving phenomena and offer information on which to base sound,

pragmatic decision making.” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Teachers need to see that

technology is not something that is best taught in isolation as a separate subject. It should

be embedded in practice when it can be linked naturally (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). If we

can make this pedagogical mind-shift teachers will no longer view technology as a

separate subject with a new set of skills they need to teach. They will see it as a tool that

can enhance their practice and their students learning. If accomplished, it will be apparent

that digital citizenship is not something that can be taught within a curriculum because it

will be tied in naturally.

There have been a lot of different initiatives put forth in recent years regarding

teacher’s responsibilities to educational technology. Without a clear vision and proper

training of what technology should look like in education has caused resistance to this

change (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Ribble (2016) describes in ‘Digital Citizenship for

Educational Change’ that “In 2008 the International Society for Technology in Education

(ISTE) updated its National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for teachers. In

that revision, ISTE identified “Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility

among five technology standards.” (Ribble, 2016). Also, the Online Safety and

Technology Working Group suggests that digital citizenship be a national priority for all

school-aged children and “in the process of teaching regular subjects, teach the

constructive, mindful use of social media enables by digital citizenship and new media-

literacy training.” (Ribble, 2016).

These recent changes and initiatives have fallen on the shoulders of teachers and
Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     6  
 
administrators. Teachers now have a new set of responsibilities on top of all their other

job requirements. “For many educators [though], digital citizenship is not a familiar term.

Most are not trained on this topic and are unprepared to teach it to their students. Yet,

they should be.”(Ribber 2016). Furthermore, a broad range of goals has emerged with

this increased interest in improving digital citizenship among students, but there has yet

to be an agreed upon way on how to go about teaching it (Ribble et al, 2004). This leave

the teacher uncertain and questioning what needs to be done (Jones & Mitchell, 2015).

“A process [then] needs to be in place so that all teachers can learn and understand the

skills and concepts involved in digital citizenship” (Ribble, 2016). Recent professional

development has been aimed at teaching teachers specific technological skills (Mishra &

Koehler, 2006). This type of training has shown to be inefficient as the knowledge

becomes outdated quickly (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Instead of being taught these

specific skills, teachers need to learn how to adjust their practice by using technology to

enhance learning, rather than teaching the specific type of technology. (Mishra &

Koehler, 2006). Teach the user of the technology, not how to use the technology.

In an attempt to make these goals more transparent for educators, different

associations and authors have written definitions for digital citizenship. NETS describes

digital citizenship as “social, ethical, legal and human issues surrounding the use of

technology.” (Ribber, 2016), while Collier (2009) expressed digital citizenship as

“critical thinking and ethical choices about the content and impact on oneself, others and

one's community of what one sees, says and produces with media, devices and

technologies” (Collier, 2009., cited by Ribble, 2016). Others have described digital

citizenship as “norms of appropriate, responsible behaviour with regard to technology

Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     7  
 
use” (Ribble and Bailey, 2007, 10., cited by Ribble, 2016). In the ISTE, they describe the

digital citizen outcomes as “Students [will] understand human, cultural and societal

issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behaviour.” In addition to this

students should also exhibit a positive attitude towards using technology and contribute to

a collaborative learning environment while demonstrating responsibility for lifelong

learning (Ribble, 2012).

In all of these definitions, there are three underlying themes uncovered. Each

address the choices people make when using technology, and how those choices affect

themselves and other people in society, while also referring to safe and responsible

behaviours online (Jones & Mitchell, 2015). The conclusion then is drawn that the end

goal for educators is to teach students how to make positive, purposeful choices when

using any technology, and understand the impact these choices have while conducting

oneself in a safe and respectful manner.

In the definitions mentioned above the essence of what digital citizenship should

encompass is missing - what it means to be a model citizen. Jones and Mitchell (2015)

propose enhancing this definition and argue that digital citizenship should not only focus

on acceptable behaviours but should also embody “practic[ing] online civic engagement”

(Jones & Mitchell, 2015). In the 21st century being a good citizen is not just a reflection

of how one conducts themselves in the real-world but online as well.

There are many similarities when defining the two concepts of citizenship and

digital citizenship. Traditional citizenship is embodying a “range of behaviours such as

participating in community activities, working to improve community or societal

problems, and addressing social injustices.” (Levine, 2007; Sherrod et al., 2002; Thorson,
Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     8  
 
2012; Westheimer and Kahne, 2004b; Zukin et al., 2006 cited in Jones & Mitchell, 2015).

It is not only how one conducts themselves but what actions one takes to “move beyond

one’s individual self-interest and be committed to the well-being of some larger group of

which one is a member (Sherrod et al., 2002: 265., cited in Jones & Mitchell, 2015).

Good citizenship should permeate into all aspects of oneself. Therefore, not just using the

Internet and online platforms for one's self-interest. Rather using it to take action and

raise awareness to issues on local and global levels. If citizenship and digital citizenship

are in essence the same in theory, with the only difference being that one uses digital

devices, there is no need to create curriculum guides and policies surrounding digital

citizenship. If a school's vision, mission, and values reflect the types of people they wish

their students to become it will apply to all aspects of students lives; in the classroom, on

the playground, at home and online. Once accomplished, students will make the

connection that they should be conducting themselves the same way both online and

offline.

Technology use among students is inevitable. What used to seen as a personal

luxury has evolved into a life necessity (Dotterer et al, 2016). Before the age of five, one

in every ten children is receiving a digital device (Dotterer et al, 2016). As we have seen,

the response to this is that there is a growing demand for schools to use technology in the

classroom and teach digital citizenship. In addition to new curriculums schools have also

adopted technology policies. Dr. Scott McLeod addresses this on his website

'Dangerously Irrelevant, Technology, Leadership and the Future of Schools'. After

reviewing different technology and digital citizenship policies, he concludes that many of

them are worded negatively using legality language such as “The use of the Internet is a
Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     9  
 
privilege, not a right," and "Inappropriate use will result in cancellation of those

privileges.” (McLeod, 2014). If we want to foster active digital citizenship why are

schools using this type of punitive language? Research shows that fear-based approaches

are ineffective (Jones & Mitchell, 2015). “If the trend towards teaching digital citizenship

moves away from [these] fear-based strategies” (Jones & Mitchell, 2015), there will

likely be a more helpful and positive response and change for students (Jones & Mitchell,

2015). "We do everything we can do get technology in the hands of our kids and then we

do everything we can to prevent them from using it. We’re very conflicted.” (McLoed,

2014).

A more practical approach that schools can adopt instead of using negative,

punitive policies, is to create a positive school philosophy. McLeod (2014) recommends

that instead of using systems that keep telling students what they cannot do; create a

policy that gives students a sense of empowerment. There are four pillars that he

recommends are:

A. Be empowered. Do awesome things. Share with us your ideas and what you can do. Amaze us.
B. Be nice. Help foster a school community that is respectful and kind.
C. Be smart and be safe. If you are uncertain, talk with us.
D. Be careful and gentle. Our resources are limited. Help us take care of our devices and networks.
(McLeod (2014)

Not only would like type of approach give students the sense of empowerment that they

need to succeed, it would translate into all areas of their lives. Citizenship and digital

citizenship would then become connected.

Children of all ages have the potential to create and do meaningful things using

technology. It gives them the chance to become “problem-solvers, critical thinkers, self-

directed and passionate about something." (McLeod, 2013). There are many examples of
Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     10  
 
students taking action and doing personal projects at home. Schools need to make a

mind-shift and start fostering these types of attitudes and behaviours in the classroom. By

doing so, school learning environments will become more robust, technology infused

places where students are doing meaningful things with technology, creating digital

citizens naturally (McLeod, 2013).

Digital citizenship curriculum documents have been created with good intentions -

to keep our students safe and to teach them responsibility. From the perspective of the

teacher, though, these new documents equal more work, when in reality they are not

needed. Given the proper training, teachers will be able to adjust their perspective and see

how they can naturally embed technology into their classroom. We need to evolve and

instead of just teaching basic technology skills we need to motivate students to use

technology to take action if we truly want them to be digital citizens. The essence of

digital citizenship can be taught outside the written curriculum, and present itself

organically if we are advocating for model citizens. Positive behaviours and attitudes

should translate through everything that we as digital users do, both online and offline.
Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     11  
 

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Dotterer, George, Andrew Hedges, and Harrison Parker. "Digital Natives - Fostering
Digital Citizenship in the Classroom | NetRef." NetRef (n.d.): 58-63.
Www.eddigest.com. Prakken Publications, 24 Aug. 2016. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

Drakopoulou, Sophia, Wendy Grossman, and Phoebe Moore. "The Campaign for Digital
Citizenship." Soundings 62.62 (2016): 107-20. Web. Sept.-Oct. 2016.

Jones, Lisa M., and Kimberly J. Mitchell. "Defining and Measuring Youth Digital
Citizenship." Defining and Measuring Youth Digital Citizenship. SAGE, 25 Mar. 2015.
Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

McLeod, Scott, Dr. (2013, September). Extracurricular empowerment: Scott McLeod at

TEDxDesMoines [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyIl4y_MRbU Retrieved: 09 Oct. 2016.

McLeod, Scott, Dr. "Instead of an AUP, How about an EUP (Empowered Use Policy)?"
Dangerously Irrelevant. N.p., 21 Mar. 2014. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,
108(6), 1017-1054.

Young, Donna. "A 21st-Century Model For Teaching Digital Citizenship." Phi Delta
Kappa International, Mar. 2014. Web. 5 Oct. 16.

Reporter, Daily Mail. "More than Half of Children Use Social Media by the Age of 10:
Facebook Is Most Popular Site That Youngsters Join." Mail Online. Associated
Newspapers, 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

Ribble, Mike (2016) Raising a Digital Child : A Digital Citizenship Handbook for
Parents. HomePage Books, 2009. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

Ribble, Mike (2012) Digital Citizenship for Educational Change, Kappa Delta Pi Record,
48:4, 148-151, DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2012.734015

Secondary Sources
Running  head:  DIGITAL  CITIZENSHIP  IN  SCHOOL     12  
 
Collier, A. 2009. A definition of digital literacy & citizenship. NetFamilyNews,
September 15. Available at: www.netfamilynews.org/?p=28594.

Levine P (2007) The Future of Democracy: Developing the Next Generation of American
Citizens. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England.

Sherrod LR, Flanagan C and Youniss J (2002) Dimensions of citizenship and

opportunities for youth development: the what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship
development. Applied Developmental Science 6: 264–272.

Ribble, M., and G. Bailey. 2007. Digital citizenship in schools. Eugene, OR: International
Society for Technology in Education.

Thorson K (2012) What does it mean to be a good citizen? Citizenship vocabularies as

resources for action. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 644: 70–85.

Westheimer J and Kahne J (2004a) Educating the “good” citizen: political choices and
pedagogical goals. Political Science and Politics 37: 241–247. Zukin C, Keeter S,
Andolina M, et al. (2006) A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the
Changing American Citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.